Welcome to the International Skeptics Forum, where we discuss skepticism, critical thinking, the paranormal and science in a friendly but lively way. You are currently viewing the forum as a guest, which means you are missing out on discussing matters that are of interest to you. Please consider
registering so you can gain full use of the forum features and interact with other Members. Registration is simple, fast and free! Click here to register today.

If made into law, this bill would be tossed out in the district court and the decision upheld by the appellate court. It would die there, because SCOTUS would not even waste the time to grant cert on this nonsense.

__________________No laws of physics were broken in the writing of this post

That said, it's the same language as the armed services oath, which obviously doesn't bar atheists from serving in the military. So it's hardly unconstitutional in that way.

The phrase "take this obligation freely" is included in the oath prescribed for officers, but omitted in the oath for enlisted soldiers. It doesn't seem any more coercive to me in the context of conferring a high school diploma, than it does in conferring a military officer's commission.

Wikipedia also suggests that while the law for the military oath doesn't indicate that any parts of it are optional, military regulations do indicate that the reference to god is optional.

While I think the specific semantic issues ("god", "freely") are utterly trivial, I think that the basic idea of imposing the oath at all is unacceptable. Is the oath bad because it has these certain phrases in it? No. Is the oath bad in the context of high school graduation? Hell yes.

Sometimes you have to choose between what is right and what is easy. St Dumbledore taught us that, as he died on the cross.

Quote:

You are stretching a demand to end an oath with "So help me God" into more than it will bear. And yes, I think a great many do take it the same way I do, as insignificant as the margins on my browser, even those who might say they are believers.

You might think of it this way -- the statement makes the oath more powerful because enforcement is left up to God. Violate the oath and God righteously punishes you. Now, does any of that have any force? None at all from where I'm sitting.

And it's not that I, myself don't draw lines, but honestly, is this where you want to make your stand? Where were you when "New and Improved" became the flat-out lie it is today? Insisting the world work according to your principles is exactly the mistake they are making. Pity them, don't become them.

You don't even have to remain silent. Say the oath. Graduate. Then mock it to your heart's content. Let them know you don't believe a word of it. Point out its failures and flaws. Tell them that not only don't you believe it, but most of the other people saying it don't either. Have a parade if you like. Get the ACLU involved, sue their pants off.

Saying the oath means absolutely nothing, so help me God.

It means at least one thing: you defer to the demands of others. You say simultaneously it's not important, it's meaningless, but then you do it anyway. That's pretty damn unprincipled.

Quote:

What you might believe, and this one is rather more important, is in the mechanism by which such an oath becomes policy -- the rule of law in miniature, the right of a majority to impose structure, the heft of tradition, the importance of listening to opinions other than your own, the ability to get along with your fellow men at no cost to yourself. Oh, there's a bunch to learn here, but an emotional reaction to getting your buttons pushed isn't the important bit.

So, the means by which you encourage "the importance of listening to opinions other than your own" is conformity to the opinions of others, and silence? That's the opposite of diversity. If listening to others' opinions is important, then how can you defend one party compelling others to publicly affirm that party's opinion and keep silent on disagreement?

Quote:

You might also take some satisfaction in that they have to enforce it by linking it to graduation. If it really were the norm, you wouldn't need to do that, it could be voluntary.

It makes it even more sick that it's not even a legitimate majority that's trying to force this on others.

[quote=theprestige;8946064]Wikipedia also suggests that while the law for the military oath doesn't indicate that any parts of it are optional, military regulations do indicate that the reference to god is optional.[quote]

The wikipedia articles on the officer's oath and the enlistment oath both mention the "So help me God." phrase is optional. A high school friend of mine took a secular affirmation upon joining the Navy. There was zero fuss involved in doing so.

I imagine the result of this attempt will be a law that mandates allowing graduating students to perform such an oath and leaving the actual enforcement to social and cultural pressure rather than an unconstitutional legal pressure. Much like the Pledge of Allegiance during school has ended up.

__________________You don't use science to show that you are right, you use science to become right. - Randall Munroe

That said, it's the same language as the armed services oath, which obviously doesn't bar atheists from serving in the military. So it's hardly unconstitutional in that way.

There is an affirmation option to taking the military oath. Atheists and others who refuse to take oaths aren't barred from military service.

Quote:

The phrase "take this obligation freely" is included in the oath prescribed for officers, but omitted in the oath for enlisted soldiers.

I think it's referring to a different obligation. In the officers' oath it means they're taking the office's particular constitutional obligations freely. In this graduation oath it really can't apply to anything but the oath itself.

Otherwise "obligation" has no referent in the high school oath.

[ETA: I think you're onto something though. The idiots who drafted this bill probably just borrowed an oath of office where "obligation" meant something specific and didn't intend for it to refer to the obligation to recite the oath itself, which is how I took it.]

Quote:

I think that the basic idea of imposing the oath at all is unacceptable. Is the oath bad because it has these certain phrases in it? No. Is the oath bad in the context of high school graduation? Hell yes.

I agree that it's problematic even without the issue of establishing a brand new oath requirement that offers no affirmation option. But doing so is unconstitutional. (See above where I considered the bill if it were amended to offer an affirmation option.)

__________________"That is a very graphic analogy which aids understanding wonderfully while being, strictly speaking, wrong in every possible way." Ponder Stibbons

The wikipedia articles on the officer's oath and the enlistment oath both mention the "So help me God." phrase is optional. A high school friend of mine took a secular affirmation upon joining the Navy. There was zero fuss involved in doing so.

I imagine the result of this attempt will be a law that mandates allowing graduating students to perform such an oath and leaving the actual enforcement to social and cultural pressure rather than an unconstitutional legal pressure. Much like the Pledge of Allegiance during school has ended up.

actually, comparing the link from the OP to the link for the officer's oath, the two are nearly identical.

__________________Vecini - Inconceivable!
Inigo - You keep on using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.

It means at least one thing: you defer to the demands of others. You say simultaneously it's not important, it's meaningless, but then you do it anyway. That's pretty damn unprincipled.

This is true, although I don't agree about the principle part. On the meaningless front, it's relative. As an atheist, I obviously don't imbue the phrase "so help me God" as having any force whatsoever. But others might. So there can simultaneously be meaning on their side and nonsense on mine.

All I'm advocating is being the adult here, the mature and rational one. My call is to avoid engaging over such minor irritants. But, if you actually do frame it as an attack on religious freedom, I'd vote your way.

Hmm, I guess this is response to the inclusion of "so help me God" at the end of the oath. What does "So help me God" mean? If I'm at a family gathering where grace or some prayer is part of the deal, I just go along. Is this different?

Yes, a family prayer is different to forcing people to acknowledge god in order to receive the prize that they earned.

Originally Posted by theprestige

I think it's a stupid idea, and a stupid law.

That said, it's the same language as the armed services oath, which obviously doesn't bar atheists from serving in the military. So it's hardly unconstitutional in that way.

The phrase "take this obligation freely" is included in the oath prescribed for officers, but omitted in the oath for enlisted soldiers. It doesn't seem any more coercive to me in the context of conferring a high school diploma, than it does in conferring a military officer's commission.

The whole point of an oath of office is that you are undertaking to uphold the duties and responsibilities of that office. High school graduates have earned their diplomas. This is more akin to requiring an oath of fealty in order to get your paycheque.

Speaking of misleading thread titles .... Yeah, jj, this is a dumb proposal by some bull-headed pols but that does not justify the thread title. They don't hate the constitution, they just understand it differently than you do. Don't exaggerate.

Nonsense, they are, against the words directly in the Constitution as a whole, proposing something clearly and obviously illegal. There is no doubt about that, and knowingly proposing such a thing, which is exactly what is going on here, can only be hatred.

I know the so help me god is what is troublesome to most people here.
What about this part
I, _________, DO SOLEMNLY SWEAR THAT I WILL SUPPORT AND DEFEND THE CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES AGAINST ALL ENEMIES, FOREIGN AND DOMESTIC

That said, it's the same language as the armed services oath, which obviously doesn't bar atheists from serving in the military.

Except in the military you don't have to add the "god" part, you can take an affirmation.

Ditto for the oath to testify in Federal Court. Except that the bailiff forgets, and puts the whole trial into a quandry, do they admit it to the jury and have a mistrial, or do they just apologize to the atheist? I speak from experience there.

Goddism is normative in the USA. Being able to think clearly is held against you in every part of society. Demanding that people who think that way out themselves might as well be asking us to put a yellow 'A' on our shirts. It is a vile, despicable act intended to cause harm to people who aren't of the normative religion of the people who wrote this bill. It is uttery unAmerican, it is repugnant, and the people who wrote it are traitors to the spirit of the US Constitution.

I know the so help me god is what is troublesome to most people here.
What about this part
I, _________, DO SOLEMNLY SWEAR THAT I WILL SUPPORT AND DEFEND THE CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES AGAINST ALL ENEMIES, FOREIGN AND DOMESTIC

That should be a requirement to graduation? Ridiculous!

Exactly. I don't see the point of getting upset about the 'so help me god', when the idea of requiring a loyalty oath in order to get a diploma that was already earned is beyond repugnant whether the god bit is in there or not.

The oath, as you posted without the god, gets a 9.99 out of ten on the repugnance scale. Adding the god back in just makes it a perfect 10.

__________________Vecini - Inconceivable!
Inigo - You keep on using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.

Exactly. I don't see the point of getting upset about the 'so help me god', when the idea of requiring a loyalty oath in order to get a diploma that was already earned is beyond repugnant whether the god bit is in there or not.

The oath, as you posted without the god, gets a 9.99 out of ten on the repugnance scale. Adding the god back in just makes it a perfect 10.

Yeah, and I've been told my life would be a lot easier if I just told people I were straight. Kept my mouth shut and head down. Conform. Be like the rest. Don't make waves.

That is playing their game. As long as they have the illusion of homogeneity, they can do as they please because "everyone" agrees. If all who disagree keep silent, then they will never know their own numbers. Hell, you could end up with an entire population that feels the opposite of what they publicly proclaim because they each think all the others believes.

^ this.

__________________... there is no shame in not knowing. The problem arises when irrational thought and attendant behavior fill the vacuum left by ignorance.
― Neil deGrasse Tyson

This reminds me of a childhood incident. A bully held a kid to the ground, grabbed the kids wrist and made him punch himself in the face. The whole time the bully insisted that the punishment would stop if the kid would swear that he was gay. Finally the kid said it, "I am gay." The bully let him up and laughed. That incident told me a whole lot more about the bully than it did about the victim.

__________________... there is no shame in not knowing. The problem arises when irrational thought and attendant behavior fill the vacuum left by ignorance.
― Neil deGrasse Tyson

It just occurred to me that any foreign exchange students that want to graduate in Arizona are going to feel really awkward.

Unrelated but I have duel citizenship with America and Great Britain. I flew to L.A. when I was 16 to take my oath at the British consulate. They asked if I wanted to use the bible or the Magna Carta. I swore on the latter.

__________________... there is no shame in not knowing. The problem arises when irrational thought and attendant behavior fill the vacuum left by ignorance.
― Neil deGrasse Tyson

Cthulhu is greater than any mere god. Cthulhu eats gods for breakfast. With toast, orange juice, milk, and cantelope slices, Deity is part of this complete breakfast! Also available, Deity With Nut Clusters, and Deity With Raisin Flakes!! Add fiber and divinity to your diet today!!!

(Even Cthulhu's power is nothing before the might of advertising. Send in five box tops and $14.99 to receive a FREE t-shirt with the Deity mascot L'il YWHW on it!!!!!)

If I had to say, "...so help me Bugs Bunny." Would that be equivalently acknowledging the existence of Bugs? Hardly. As an atheist, the oath is nonsensical; it can hold no sway over me. Otherwise, how could I spend money that has the phrase, "In God We Trust" on it?

A meaningless oath is just that, meaningless.

Some people care a great deal about the words that come out of their mouth. Some people make a point of never saying anything meaningless, or that they don't believe to be true.

Some people care a great deal about the words that come out of their mouth. Some people make a point of never saying anything meaningless, or that they don't believe to be true.

Who are those people? From your description, I take it they can't sing songs, read fiction out loud or tell me to have a nice day? What an odd thing to be a slave of words instead of the master. I'm not sure if my diagnosis would be toxic gravitas, hubris or megalomania. I'll fall back on supercalifragilisticexpialidocious. (Surprisingly, that wasn't in my spell checker.)

Quote:

The government should not be forcing people to do these things.

But don't forget, when you say "government" it's just shorthand for "other people in the community."

Who are those people? From your description, I take it they can't sing songs, read fiction out loud or tell me to have a nice day? What an odd thing to be a slave of words instead of the master. I'm not sure if my diagnosis would be toxic gravitas, hubris or megalomania. I'll fall back on supercalifragilisticexpialidocious. (Surprisingly, that wasn't in my spell checker.)

But don't forget, when you say "government" it's just shorthand for "other people in the community."

What kind of society allows "other people in the community" to force the entire community to swear an oath.

__________________... there is no shame in not knowing. The problem arises when irrational thought and attendant behavior fill the vacuum left by ignorance.
― Neil deGrasse Tyson